Advertisement

Euphytica

, 214:58 | Cite as

Single-plant selection within lentil landraces at ultra-low density: a short-time tool to breed high yielding and stable varieties across divergent environments

  • D. N. Vlachostergios
  • C. Tzantarmas
  • A. Kargiotidou
  • E. Ninou
  • C. Pankou
  • C. Gaintatzi
  • I. Mylonas
  • I. Papadopoulos
  • C. Foti
  • E. K. Chatzivassiliou
  • E. Sinapidou
  • A. Lithourgidis
  • I. S. Tokatlidis
Article
  • 100 Downloads

Abstract

Nil-competition (ultra-low plant density) has been asserted to highlight individual genotypes of high yielding potential. This was tested on three lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) landraces originated from different regions of Greece, germplasm presumably comprising mixtures of homozygous genotypes due to the self-pollinating nature of the crop. Single-plant selection under ultra-low density (interplant distance of 50 or 80 cm) resulted in first- and second-generation sister lines. Progeny testing was conducted in three locations, while the final evaluation at farming density included an additional marginal environment. Wide interplant distance accelerated phenotypic expression of susceptibility to viruses, reflected by high coefficient of variation of single-plant yields. Compared to the mother populations, higher yields combined with reduced virus incidence was observed in the first-generation sister lines, and even higher yields in the second-generation lines partly attributable to further improvement of their sanitary status. Remarkably, at the farming density across five environments, second generation sister lines had mean grain yields by 8, 10 and 20% higher compared to their respective ancestors. Individual sister lines exhibited up to 32% higher yields and stability in ‘agronomic’ terms, i.e. on both the GGE biplot model and regression approach of G×E interaction. In conclusion, the procedure appears an efficient tool that allows the breeder to exploit the natural genetic variability within landraces and develop in short-time pure-line varieties adaptable to a wide range of conditions.

Keywords

Lentil landrace Intra-species competition Seedborne viruses Low-input agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All authors contributed equally to this research co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund) and Greek national funds in the framework of the project “THALIS—Democritus University of Thrace—Selection for enhanced yield and tolerance to viral and vascular diseases within lentil landraces” through the Operational Program of the NSRF (National Strategic Reference Framework) “Education and lifelong learning-investing in knowledge society.”

References

  1. Bektas H, Hohn CE, Waines JG (2016) Root and shoot traits of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) landraces and cultivars. Euphytica 212:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camacho Villa TC, Maxted N, Scholten M, Ford-Lloyd B (2005) Defining and identifying crop landraces. Plant Genet Resour 3:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chatzivassiliou EK, Giakountis A, Kumari SG, Makkouk KM (2016) Viruses affecting lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) in Greece; incidence and genetic variability of Bean leafroll virus and Pea enation mosaic virus. Phytopathol Mediterr 55(2):239–252Google Scholar
  4. Chatzoglou Th, Tokatlidis IS (2012) Decision on germplasm choice to apply breeding within a local population of common vetch is affected by crowding. Span J Agric Res 10:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Döring TF, Knapp S, Cohen JE (2015) Taylor’s power low and the stability of crop yields. Field Crops Res 183:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erskine W, Williams PC, Nakkoul H (1985) Genetic and environmental variation in the seed size, protein, yield, and cooking quality of lentils. Field Crops Res 12:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fasoula VA, Fasoula DA (1997) Competitive ability and plant breeding. Plant Breed Rev 14:89–138Google Scholar
  8. Fasoula VA, Tokatlidis IS (2012) Development of crop cultivars by honeycomb breeding. Agron Sustain Dev 32:161–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fasoula VA, Tollenaar M (2005) The impact of plant population density on crop yield and response to selection in maize. Maydica 50:39–48Google Scholar
  10. Fasoulas AC, Fasoula VA (1995) Honeycomb selection designs. Plant Breed Rev 13:87–139Google Scholar
  11. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galván MZ, Menendez-Sevillano MC, DeRon AM, Santalla M, Balatti PA (2006) Genetic diversity among wild common beans from north western Argentina based on morpho-agronomic and RAPD data. Genet Resour Crop E 53:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gepts P (2002) A comparison between crop domestication, classical plant breeding, and genetic engineering. Crop Sci 42:1780–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gravois K, Helms RS (1996) Seeding rate effects on rough rice yield, head rice, and total milled rice. Agron J 88:82–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hatfield JL, Walthall CL (2015) Meeting global food needs: realizing the potential via genetics × environment × management interactions. Agron J 107(4):1215–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horneburg B, Becker HC (2008) Crop adaptation in on-farm management by genes and conscious selection: a case study with lentil. Crop Sci 48:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones RAC (2004) Using epidemiological information to develop effective integrated virus disease management strategies. Virus Res 100:5–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kargiotidou A, Chatzivassiliou E, Sinapidou E, Papageorgiou A, Skaracis G, Tokatlidis IS (2014) Selection at ultra-low density highlights plants escaping virus infection and leads towards high-performing pure-line cultivars in lentil. J Agric Sci 152:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kargiotidou A, Tzantarmas C, Chatzivassiliou E, Tokatlidis IS (2015) Seed propagation at low density facilitates the selection of healthy plants to produce seeds with a reduced virus load in a lentil landrace. Seed Sci Technol 43:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kargiotidou A, Vlachostergios DN, Tzantarmas C, Mylonas I, Foti C, Menexes G, Polidoros A, Tokatlidis IS (2016) Addressing huge spatial heterogeneity induced by virus infections in lentil breeding trials. J Biol Res-Thessalon 23:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40709-016-0039-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotzamanidis ST, Lithourgidis AS, Roupakias DG (2009) Plant density effect on the individual plant to plant yield variability expressed as coefficient of variation in barley. Span J Agric Res 7:607–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumari SG, Larsen R, Makkouk KM, Bashir M (2009) Virus diseases and their control. In: Erskine W, Muehlbauer FJ, Sarker A, Sharma B (eds) The lentil: botany, production and uses. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyriakou DT, Fasoulas AC (1985) Effects of competition and selection pressure on yield response in winter rye (Secale cereale L.). Euphytica 34:883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luthra SK, Sharma PC (1990) Correlation and path analysis in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Lens Newsl 17(2):5–8Google Scholar
  25. Makkouk KM, Kumari SG (2009) Epidemiology and integrated management of persistently transmitted aphid-borne viruses of legume and cereal crops in West Asia and North Africa. Virus Res 141:209–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin KL, Hodgen PJ, Freeman KW, Melchiori R, Arnall DB, Teal RK, Mullen RW, Desta K, Phillips SB, Solie JB, Stone ML, Caviglia O, Solari F, Bianchini A, Francis DD, Schepers JS, Hatfield JL, Raun WR (2005) Plant-to-plant variability in corn production. Agron J 97:1603–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mauromoustakos A, Fasoula VA, Thompson K (2006) Honeycomb designs computing and analysis. Presentation at: ENAR spring meeting, international biometric society, eastern North American Region, 26–29 March 2006, Tampa, FL, p. 63Google Scholar
  28. Minister of Rural Development and Food (2012) Decision No 492/85653. Journal of the Government of the Hellenic Republic No L 2355, 23-8-2012 Athens GreeceGoogle Scholar
  29. Minister of Rural Development and Food (2016) Decision No 2569/98862. Journal of the Government of the Hellenic Republic No L 2987, 19-9-2015 Athens GreeceGoogle Scholar
  30. Ninou EG, Mylonas IG, Tsivelikas A, Ralli P, Dordas C, Tokatlidis IS (2014) Wheat landraces are better qualified as potential gene pools at ultraspaced rather than densely grown conditions. Sci World J 2014:957472.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/957472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pan XY, Wang GX, Yang HM, Wei XP (2003) Effect of water deficits on within-plot variability in growth and grain yield of spring wheat in northwest China. Field Crops Res 80:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pandey A, Singh D P, Singh BB (1992) Evaluation of Indigenous germplasm for yield and yield components in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). N. D. University of Agriculture & Technology, Faizabad, India, Research Bulletin No. 1, pp. 45Google Scholar
  33. Papadopoulos II, Tokatlidis IS (2011) A novel statistic estimated in the absence of competition to foresee genotype performance at the farming conditions paralles the agronomic concept of stability. Aust J Crop Sci 5:822–830Google Scholar
  34. Payne RW (2009) Genstat. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 1:255–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reynolds M, Foulkes J, Furbank R, Griffiths S, King J, Murchie E, Parry M, Slafer G (2012) Achieving yield gains in wheat. Plant Cell Envir 35:1799–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sedgley RH (1991) An appraisal of the Donald ideotype after 21 years. Field Crops Res 26:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods, 8th edn. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  38. Srivastava SK, Sivaramane N, Mathur VC (2010) Diagnosis of pulses performance of India. Agric Econs Res Rev 23:137–148Google Scholar
  39. Stamp P, Visser R (2012) The twenty-first century, the century of plant breeding. Euphytica 186:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stefaniak TR, McPhee KE (2015) Lentil. In: de Ron A (ed) Grain legumes, handbook of plant breeding 10. Springer, New York, pp 111–140Google Scholar
  41. Taylor SL, Payton ME, Raun WR (1999) Relationships between mean yield, coefficient of variation, mean square error, and plot size in wheat field experiments. Commun Soil Sci Plan 30:1439–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tokatlidis IS (2016) Sampling the spatial heterogeneity of the honeycomb model in maize and wheat breeding trials: analysis of secondary data compared to popular classical designs. Exp Agric 52:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tokatlidis IS (2017) Crop adaptation to density to optimise grain yield: breeding implications. Euphytica 213:92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1874-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tokatlidis I, Vlachostergios D (2016) Sustainable stewardship of the landrace diversity. Diversity.  https://doi.org/10.3390/d8040029 Google Scholar
  45. Tokatlidis IS, Xynias IN, Tsialtas JT, Papadopoulos II (2006) Single-plant selection at ultra low density to improve stability of a bread wheat cultivar. Crop Sci 46:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tokatlidis IS, Papadopoulos II, Baxevanos D, Koutita O (2010) GxE effects on single-plant selection at low density for yield and stability in climbing dry bean. Crop Sci 50:775–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tokatlidis IS, Tsikrikoni C, Lithourgidis AS, Tsialtas JT, Tzantarmas C (2011) Intra-cultivar variation in cotton: response to single-plant yield selection. J Agric Sci 149:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tollenaar M, Wu J (1999) Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Sci 39:1597–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vandemark GJ, Brick MA, Osorno JM, Kelly JD, Urrea CA (2014) Edible grain legumes. In: Smith S, Diers B, Specht J, Carver B (eds) Yield gains in major U.S. field crops. CSSA Special publications 33, pp 87–124.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cssaspecpub33.c5
  50. Vlachostergios DN, Roupakias DG (2017) Screening under low-plant density reinforces the identification of lentil plants with resistance to fusarium wilt. Crop Sci 57:1285–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vlachostergios DN, Lithourgidis AS, Roupakias DG (2011) Effectiveness of single plant selection at low density under organic environment. A field study with lentil. Crop Sci 51:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yan W (2001) GGE biplot—a Windows application for graphical analysis of multi environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Crop Sci 93:1111–1118Google Scholar
  53. Yan W (2002) Singular-value partition in biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data. Agron J 94:990–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeven AC (2002) Traditional maintenance breeding of landraces: 2. Practical and theoretical considerations on maintenance of variation of landraces by farmers and gardeners. Euphytica 123:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. N. Vlachostergios
    • 1
  • C. Tzantarmas
    • 2
  • A. Kargiotidou
    • 1
  • E. Ninou
    • 3
  • C. Pankou
    • 3
  • C. Gaintatzi
    • 2
  • I. Mylonas
    • 1
  • I. Papadopoulos
    • 4
  • C. Foti
    • 1
  • E. K. Chatzivassiliou
    • 5
  • E. Sinapidou
    • 2
  • A. Lithourgidis
    • 3
  • I. S. Tokatlidis
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial and Fodder Crops InstituteHellenic Agricultural OrganizationLarissaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural DevelopmentDemocritus University of ThraceOrestiadaGreece
  3. 3.School of AgricultureAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Technological Education Institute of W. MacedoniaFlorinaGreece
  5. 5.Department of Crop ScienceAgricultural University of AthensVotanikosGreece

Personalised recommendations